De La Victoria vs. Burgos G.R. No. 111190. June 27, 1995 Bellosillo, J. Assistant City Fiscal Bienvenido N. Mabanto was ordered to pay herein private respondent Raul Sesbreño P11!!!.!! P11!!!.!! as da"a#es. A notice notice o$ #arnish"ent was served on herein petitioner %oreto &. de la 'ictoria 'ictoria as City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City Cit y where Mabanto was detailed. ' was directed not to disburse trans$er release or convey to any other person e(cept to the deputy sheri$$ concerned the salary chec)s or other chec)s "onies or cash due or belon#in# to Mabanto *r. under penalty o$ law. %ater %ater ' was directed to sub"it his report showin# the a"ount o$ the #arnished salaries. ' "oved to +uash the notice o$ #arnish"ent clai"in# that he was not in possession o$ any "oney $unds credit property or anythin# o$ value belon#in# to Mabanto *r. e(cept his salary and RA,A chec)s but that said chec)s were not yet properties o$ Mabanto Mabanto *r. until delivered to hi". -e $urther $urther clai"ed that as such they were were still public $unds which could not be subect to #arnish"ent. /SS02 34N a chec) still in the hands o$ the "a)er or its duly authori5ed representative is owned by the payee be$ore physical delivery delivery to the latter. latter. R0%/N62 As Assistant Assistant City Fiscal the source o$ the salary o$ Mabanto *r. is public $unds. -e receives his co"pensation in the $or" o$ chec)s $ro" the &7* throu#h ' as City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City Cit y and head o$ o$$ice. 0nder Sec. 18 o$ the Ne#otiable /nstru"ents %aw %aw every contract on a ne#otiable instru"ent is inco"plete and revocable until delivery o$ the instru"ent $or the purpose o$ #ivin# e$$ect thereto. As ordinarily understood understood delivery "eans the trans$er o$ the possession o$ the instru"ent by the "a)er or drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize him as the holder thereof. /nas"uch as said chec)s had not yet been delivered to Mabanto *r. they did not belong to him and still had the character o$ public $unds. ,he salary chec) o$ a #overn"ent o$$icer or e"ployee does not belon# to hi" be$ore it is physically delivered to hi". 0ntil that ti"e the chec) belon#s to the #overn"ent. Accordin#ly Accordin#ly be$ore there is actual delivery o$ the chec) the payee has no power over it9 he cannot assi#n it without the consent o$ the 6overn"ent. Bein# public $und the chec)s "ay not be #arnished to satis$y the ud#"ent in consideration o$ public policy. policy.
lawphil.net
G.R. No. 111190 Republic o$ the Philippines S!R"#" $%R& Manila
F/RS, &/'/S/7N
G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 L%R"&% D. D" L' V($&%R(', as $it) *iscal o+ #anaue $it) an in -is ersonal caacit) as garnis-ee, petitioner vs. /%N. J%S" !. BRG%S, !resiing Juge, R&$, Br. V((, $eu $it), an R'L /. S"SBR"%, respondents. B"LL%S(LL%, J.: RA0% -. SSBR:7 $iled a co"plaint $or da"a#es a#ainst Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto *r. and &ario &. Ra"a *r. be$ore the Re#ional ,rial Court o$ Cebu City. A$ter trial ud#"ent was rendered orderin# the de$endants to pay P11!!!.!! to the plainti$$ private respondent herein. ,he decision havin# beco"e $inal and e(ecutory on "otion o$ the latter the trial court ordered its e(ecution. ,his order was +uestioned by the de$endants be$ore the Court o$ Appeals. -owever on 1; *anuary 1<<= a writ o$ e(ecution was issued. 7n > February 1<<= a notice o$ #arnish"ent was served on petitioner %oreto &. de la 'ictoria as City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City where de$endant Mabanto *r. was then detailed. ,he notice directed petitioner not to disburse trans$er release or convey to any other person e( cept to the deputy sheri$$ concerned the salary chec)s or other chec)s "onies or cash due or belon#in# to Mabanto *r. under penalty o$ law. 1 7n 1! March 1<<= private respondent $iled a "otion be$ore the trial court $or e(a"ination o$ the #arnishees. 7n =; May 1<<= the petition pendin# be$ore the Court o$ Appeals was dis"issed. ,hus the trial court $indin# no "ore le#al obstacle to act on the "otion $or e(a"ination o$ the #arnishees directed petitioner on > Nove"ber 1<<= to sub"it his report showin# the a"ount o$ the #arnished salaries o$ Mabanto *r. within $i$teen ?1;@ days $ro" receipt 2 ta)in# into consideration the provisions o$ Sec. 1= pars. ?$@ and ?i@ Rule < o$ the Rules o$ Court. 7n => Nove"ber 1<<= private respondent $iled a "otion to re+uire petitioner to e(plain why he should not be cited in conte"pt o$ court $or $ailin# to co"ply with the order o$ > Nove"ber 1<<=. 7n the other hand on 1< *anuary 1<< petitioner "oved to +uash the notice o$ #arnish"ent clai"in# that he was not in possession o$ any "oney $unds credit property or anythin# o$ value belon#in# to Mabanto *r. e(cept his salary and RA,A chec)s but that said chec)s were not yet properties o$ Mabanto *r. until delivered to hi". -e $urther clai"ed that as such they were still public $unds which could not be subect to #arnish"ent. 7n < March 1<< the trial court denied both "otions and ordered petitioner to i""ediately co"ply with its order o$ > Nove"ber 1<<=. 3 /t opined that the chec)s o$ Mabanto *r. had already been released throu#h petitioner by the &epart"ent o$ *ustice duly si#ned by the o$$icer concerned. 0pon service o$ the writ o$ #arnish"ent petitioner as custodian o$ the chec)s was
under obli#ation to hold the" $or the ud#"ent creditor. Petitioner beca"e a virtual party to or a $orced intervenor in the case and the trial court thereby ac+uired urisdiction to bind hi" to its orders and processes with a view to the co"plete satis$action o$ the ud#"ent. Additionally there was no su$$icient reason $or petitioner to hold the chec)s because they were no lon#er #overn"ent $unds and presu"ably delivered to the payee con$or"ably with the last sentence o$ Sec. 18 o$ the Ne#otiable /nstru"ents %aw. 3ith re#ard to the conte"pt char#e the trial court was not "orally convinced o$ petitioners #uilt. For while his e(planation su$$ered $ro" procedural in$ir"ities nevertheless he too) pains in enli#htenin# the court by sendin# a written e(planation dated == *uly 1<<= re+uestin# $or the li$tin# o$ the notice o$ #arnish"ent on the #round that the notice should have been sent to the Finance 7$$icer o$ the &epart"ent o$ *ustice. Petitioner insists that he had no authority to se#re#ate a portion o$ the salary o$ Mabanto *r. ,he e(planation however was not sub"itted to the trial court $or action since the steno#raphic reporter $ailed to attach it to the record. 4 7n =! April 1<< the "otion $or reconsideration was denied. ,he trial court e(plained that it was not the duty o$ the #arnishee to in+uire or ud#e $or hi"sel$ whether the issuance o$ the order o$ e(ecution writ o$ e(ecution and notice o$ #arnish"ent was usti$ied. -is only duty was to turn over the #arnished chec)s to the trial court which issued the order o$ e(ecution. 5 Petitioner raises the $ollowin# relevant issues2 ?1@ whether a chec) still in the hands o$ the "a)er or its duly authori5ed representative is owned by the payee be$ore physical delivery to the latter2 and ?=@ whether the salary chec) o$ a #overn"ent o$$icial or e"ployee $unded with public $unds can be subect to #arnish"ent. Petitioner reiterates his position that the salary chec)s were not owned by Mabanto *r. because they were not yet delivered to hi" and that petitioner as #arnishee has no le#al obli#ation to hold and deliver the" to the trial court to be applied to Mabanto *r.s ud#"ent debt. ,he thesis o$ petitioner is that the salary chec)s still $or"ed part o$ public $unds and there$ore beyond the reach o$ #arnish"ent proceedin#s. Petitioner has well ar#ued his case. 6arnish"ent is considered as a species o$ attach"ent $or reachin# credits belon#in# to the ud#"ent debtor owin# to hi" $ro" a stran#er to the liti#ation. "phasis is laid on the phrase belon#in# to the ud#"ent debtor since it is the $ocal point in resolvin# the issues raised. As Assistant City Fiscal the source o$ the salary o$ Mabanto *r. is public $unds. -e receives his co"pensation in the $or" o$ chec)s $ro" the &epart"ent o$ *ustice throu#h petitioner as City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City and head o$ o$$ice. 0nder Sec. 18 o$ the Ne#otiable /nstru"ents %aw every contract on a ne#otiable instru"ent is inco"plete and revocable until delivery o$ the instru"ent $or the purpose o$ #ivin# e$$ect thereto. As ordinarily understood delivery "eans the trans$er o$ the possession o$ the instru"ent by the "a)er or drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize him as the holder thereof. 7
Accordin# to the trial court the chec)s o$ Mabanto *r. were already released by the &epart"ent o$ *ustice duly si#ned by the o$$icer concerned throu#h petitioner and upon service o$ the writ o$ #arnish"ent by the sheri$$ petitioner was under obli#ation to hold the" $or the ud#"ent creditor. /t reco#ni5ed the role o$ petitioner as custodian o$ the chec)s. At the sa"e ti"e however it considered the chec)s as no lon#er #overn"ent $unds and presu"ed delivered to the payee based on the last sentence o$ Sec. 18 o$ the Ne#otiable /nstru"ents %aw which states2 And where the instru"ent is no lon#er in the possession o$ a party whose si#nature appears thereon a valid and intentional delivery by hi" is presu"ed. Det the presu"ption is not conclusive because the last portion o$ the provision says until the contrary is proved. -owever this phrase was deleted by the trial court $or no apparent reason. Proo$ to the contrary is its own $indin# that the chec)s were in the custody o$ petitioner. /nas"uch as said chec)s had not yet been delivered to Mabanto *r. they did not belong to him and still had the character o$ public $unds. /n Tiro v. Hontanosas 6 we ruled that E ,he salary chec) o$ a #overn"ent o$$icer or e"ployee such as a teacher does not belon# to hi" be$ore it is physically delivered to hi". 0ntil that ti"e the chec) belon#s to the #overn"ent. Accordin#ly be$ore there is actual delivery o$ the chec) the payee has no power over it9 he cannot assi#n it without the consent o$ the 6overn"ent. As a necessary conse+uence o$ bein# public $und the chec)s "ay not be #arnished to satis$y the ud#"ent. 9 ,he rationale behind this doctrine is obvious consideration o$ public policy. ,he Court succinctly stated in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego 10 that E ,he $unctions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paraly5ed or disrupted by the diversion o$ public $unds $ro" their le#iti"ate and speci$ic obects as appropriated by law. /n denyin# petitioners "otion $or reconsideration the trial court e(pressed the additional ratiocination that it was not the duty o$ the #arnishee to in+uire or ud#e $or hi"sel$ whether the issuance o$ the order o$ e(ecution the writ o$ e(ecution and the notice o$ #arnish"ent was usti$ied citin# our rulin# in Philippine Commercial Industrial an! v. Court of "ppeals. 11 7ur precise rulin# in that case was that /Gt is not incu"bent upon the #arnishee to in+uire or to ud#e $or itsel$ whether or not the order $or the advance e(ecution o$ a ud#"ent is valid. But that is invo)in# only the #eneral rule. 3e have also established therein the co"pellin# reasons as e(ceptions thereto which were not ta)en into account by the trial court e.#. a de$ect on the $ace o$ the writ or actual )nowled#e by the #arnishee o$ lac) o$ entitle"ent on the part o$ the #arnisher. /t is worth to note that the rulin# re$erred to the validity o$ advance e(ecution o$ ud#"ents but a care$ul scrutiny o$ that case and si"ilar cases reveals that it was applicable to a notice o$ #arnish"ent as well. /n the case at bench it was incu"bent upon petitioner to in+uire into the validity o$ the notice o$ #arnish"ent as he had actual )nowled#e o$ the nonHentitle"ent o$ private respondent to the chec)s in +uestion. Conse+uently we $ind no di$$iculty concludin# that the trial court e(ceeded its urisdiction in issuin# the notice o$ #arnish"ent concernin# the salary chec)s o$ Mabanto *r. in the possession o$ petitioner.
3-RF7R the petition is 6RAN,&. ,he orders o$ < March 1<< and =! April 1<< o$ the Re#ional ,rial Court o$ Cebu City Br. 1I subect o$ the petition are S, AS/&. ,he notice o$ #arnish"ent served on petitioner dated February 1<<= is ordered &/SC-AR6&. S7 7R&R&. #uiason and $apunan% &&.% concur.
Searate %inions D'V(D", JR ., J., concurrin# and dissentin#2 ,his Court "ay ta)e udicial notice o$ the $act that chec)s $or salaries o$ e"ployees o$ various &epart"ents all over the country are prepared in Manila not at the end o$ the payroll period but days be$ore it to ensure that they reach the e"ployees concerned not later than the end o$ the payroll period. As to the e"ployees in the provinces or cities the chec)s are sent throu#h the heads o$ the correspondin# o$$ices o$ the &epart"ents. ,hus in the case o$ Prosecutors and Assistant Prosecutors o$ the &epart"ent o$ *ustice the chec)s are sent throu#h the Provincial Prosecutors or City Prosecutors as the case "ay be who shall then deliver the chec)s to the payees. /nvolved in the instant case are the salary and RA,A chec)s o$ then Assistant City Fiscal Bienvenido Mabanto *r. who was detailed in the 7$$ice o$ the City Fiscal ?now Prosecutor@ o$ Mandaue City. Con$or"ably with the a$oresaid practice these chec)s were sent to Mabanto thru the petitioner who was then the City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City. ,he ponencia $ailed to indicate the payroll period covered by the salary chec) and the "onth to which the RA,A chec) corresponds. / respect$ully sub"it that i$ these salary and RA,A chec)s corresponded respectively to a payroll period and to a "onth which had already lapsed at the ti"e the notice o$ #arnish"ent was served the #arnish"ent would be valid as the chec)s would then cease to be property o$ the 6overn"ent and would beco"e property o$ Mabanto. 0pon the e(piration o$ such period and "onth the su"s indicated therein were dee"ed auto"atically se#re#ated $ro" the bud#etary allocations $or the &epart"ent o$ *ustice under the 6eneral Appropriations Act. /t "ust be recalled that the public policy a#ainst e(ecution attach"ent or #arnish"ent is directed to public $unds. ,hus in the case o$ Director of the ureau of Commerce and Industry vs. Concepcion 1 where the core issue was whether or not the salary due $ro" the 6overn"ent to a public o$$icer or e"ployee can by #arnish"ent be sei5ed be$ore bein# paid to hi" and appropriated to the pay"ent o$ his ud#"ent debts this Court held2 A rule which has never been seriously +uestioned is that "oney in the hands o$ public o$$icers althou#h it "ay be due #overn"ent e"ployees is
not liable to the creditors o$ these e"ployees in the process o$ #arnish"ent. 7ne reason is that the State by virtue o$ its soverei#nty "ay not be sued in its own courts e(cept by e(press authori5ation by the %e#islature and to subect its o$$icers to #arnish"ent would be to per"it indirectly what is prohibited directly. "nother reason is that moneys sought to be garnished% as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the 'overnment% belong to the latter% although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. "nd still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it.
,he 0nited States Supre"e Court in the leadin# case o$ Buchanan vs. Ale(ander ?1J>8G > -ow. 1<@ in spea)in# o$ the ri#ht o$ creditors o$ sea"en by process o$ attach"ent to divert the public "oney $ro" its le#iti"ate and appropriate obect said2 ,o state such a principle is to re$ute it. No #overn"ent can sanction it. At all ti"es it would be $ound e"barrassin# and under so"e circu"stances it "i#ht be $atal to the public service. . . . So long as money remains in the hands of a disbursing officer% it is as much the money of the (nited States% as if it had not been drawn from the treasury. (ntil paid over by the agent of the government to the person entitled to it% the fund cannot% in any legal sense% be considered a part of his effects. ?See $urther 1= R.C.%. p.
J>19 Keene vs. S"ith 1G >> 7re. ;=;9 3ild vs. Fer#uson 1JI1G = %a. Ann. I;=9 Ban) o$ ,ennessee vs. &ibrell 1J;;G Sneed ,enn.G I<@. ?e"phasis supplied@ ,he authorities cited in the ponencia are inapplicable. 6arnished or levied on therein were public $unds to wit2 ?a@ the pu"p irri#ation trust $und deposited with the Philippine National Ban) ?PNB@ in the account o$ the /rri#ation Service 0nit in )epublic vs. Palacio9 2 ?b@ the deposits o$ the National Media Production Center in Traders )oyal an! vs. Intermediate "ppellate Court 9 3 and ?c@ the deposits o$ the Bureau o$ Public -i#hways with the PNB under a current account which "ay be e(pended only $or their le#iti"ate obect as authori5ed by the correspondin# le#islative appropriation in Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Diego. 4 Neither is Tiro vs. Hontanosas 5 s+uarely in point. ,he said case involved the validity o$ Circular No. =1 series o$ 1<8< issued by the &irector o$ Public Schools which directed that hence$orth no cashier or disbursin# o$$icer shall pay to attorneysHinH$act or other persons who "ay be authori5ed under a power o$ attorney or other $or"s o$ authority to collect the salary o$ an e"ployee e(cept when the persons so desi#nated and authori5ed is an i""ediate "e"ber o$ the $a"ily o$ the e"ployee concerned and in all other cases e(cept upon proper authori5ation o$ the Assistant (ecutive Secretary $or %e#al and Ad"inistrative Matters with the reco""endation o$ the Financial Assistant. Private respondent La$ra Financin# nterprise which had e(tended loans to public school teachers in Cebu City and obtained $ro" the latter promissory notes and
special powers of attorney authorizing it to ta!e and collect their salary chec!s from the Division *ffice in Cebu City o$ the Bureau o$ Public Schools sou#ht inter alia to nulli$y the Circular. /t
is clear that the teachers had in $act assi#ned to or waived in $avor o$ La$ra their $uture salaries which were still public $unds. ,hat assi#n"ent or waiver was contrary to pub lic policy. / would there$ore vote to #rant the petition only i$ the salary and RA,A chec)s #arnished corresponds to an une(pired payroll period and RA,A "onth respectively. Padilla% &.% concurs.
Searate %inions D'V(D", JR ., J., concurrin# and dissentin#2 ,his Court "ay ta)e udicial notice o$ the $act that chec)s $or salaries o$ e"ployees o$ various &epart"ents all over the country are prepared in Manila not at the end o$ the payroll period but days be$ore it to ensure that they reach the e"ployees concerned not later than the end o$ the payroll period. As to the e"ployees in the provinces or cities the chec)s are sent throu#h the heads o$ the correspondin# o$$ices o$ the &epart"ents. ,hus in the case o$ Prosecutors and Assistant Prosecutors o$ the &epart"ent o$ *ustice the chec)s are sent throu#h the Provincial Prosecutors or City Prosecutors as the case "ay be who shall then deliver the chec)s to the payees. /nvolved in the instant case are the salary and RA,A chec)s o$ then Assistant City Fiscal Bienvenido Mabanto *r. who was detailed in the 7$$ice o$ the City Fiscal ?now Prosecutor@ o$ Mandaue City. Con$or"ably with the a$oresaid practice these chec)s were sent to Mabanto thru the petitioner who was then the City Fiscal o$ Mandaue City. ,he ponencia $ailed to indicate the payroll period covered by the salary chec) and the "onth to which the RA,A chec) corresponds. / respect$ully sub"it that i$ these salary and RA,A chec)s corresponded respectively to a payroll period and to a "onth which had already lapsed at the ti"e the notice o$ #arnish"ent was served the #arnish"ent would be valid as the chec)s would then cease to be property o$ the 6overn"ent and would beco"e property o$ Mabanto. 0pon the e(piration o$ such period and "onth the su"s indicated therein were dee"ed auto"atically se#re#ated $ro" the bud#etary allocations $or the &epart"ent o$ *ustice under the 6eneral Appropriations Act. /t "ust be recalled that the public policy a#ainst e(ecution attach"ent or #arnish"ent is directed to public $unds. ,hus in the case o$ Director of the ureau of Commerce and Industry vs. Concepcion 1 where the core issue was whether or not the salary due $ro" the 6overn"ent to a public o$$icer or e"ployee can by #arnish"ent be sei5ed be$ore bein# paid to hi" and appropriated to the pay"ent o$ his ud#"ent debts this Court held2
A rule which has never been seriously +uestioned is that "oney in the hands o$ public o$$icers althou#h it "ay be due #overn"ent e"ployees is not liable to the creditors o$ these e"ployees in the process o$ #arnish"ent. 7ne reason is that the State by virtue o$ its soverei#nty "ay not be sued in its own courts e(cept by e(press authori5ation by the %e#islature and to subect its o$$icers to #arnish"ent would be to per"it indirectly what is prohibited directly. "nother reason is that moneys sought to be garnished% as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the 'overnment% belong to the latter% although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. "nd still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it.
,he 0nited States Supre"e Court in the leadin# case o$ Buchanan vs. Ale(ander ?1J>8G > -ow. 1<@ in spea)in# o$ the ri#ht o$ creditors o$ sea"en by process o$ attach"ent to divert the public "oney $ro" its le#iti"ate and appropriate obect said2 ,o state such a principle is to re$ute it. No #overn"ent can sanction it. At all ti"es it would be $ound e"barrassin# and under so"e circu"stances it "i#ht be $atal to the public service. . . . So long as money remains in the hands of a disbursing officer% it is as much the money of the (nited States% as if it had not been drawn from the treasury. (ntil paid over by the agent of the government to the person entitled to it% the fund cannot% in any legal sense% be considered a part of his effects. ?See $urther 1= R.C.%. p.
J>19 Keene vs. S"ith 1G >> 7re. ;=;9 3ild vs. Fer#uson 1JI1G = %a. Ann. I;=9 Ban) o$ ,ennessee vs. &ibrell 1J;;G Sneed ,enn.G I<@. ?e"phasis supplied@ ,he authorities cited in the ponencia are inapplicable. 6arnished or levied on therein were public $unds to wit2 ?a@ the pu"p irri#ation trust $und deposited with the Philippine National Ban) ?PNB@ in the account o$ the /rri#ation Service 0nit in )epublic vs. Palacio9 2 ?b@ the deposits o$ the National Media Production Center in Traders )oyal an! vs. Intermediate "ppellate Court 9 3 and ?c@ the deposits o$ the Bureau o$ Public -i#hways with the PNB under a current account which "ay be e(pended only $or their le#iti"ate obect as authori5ed by the correspondin# le#islative appropriation in Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Diego. 4 Neither is Tiro vs. Hontanosas 5 s+uarely in point. ,he said case involved the validity o$ Circular No. =1 series o$ 1<8< issued by the &irector o$ Public Schools which directed that hence$orth no cashier or disbursin# o$$icer shall pay to attorneysHinH$act or other persons who "ay be authori5ed under a power o$ attorney or other $or"s o$ authority to collect the salary o$ an e"ployee e(cept when the persons so desi#nated and authori5ed is an i""ediate "e"ber o$ the $a"ily o$ the e"ployee concerned and in all other cases e(cept upon proper authori5ation o$ the Assistant (ecutive Secretary $or %e#al and Ad"inistrative Matters with the reco""endation o$
the Financial Assistant. Private respondent La$ra Financin# nterprise which had e(tended loans to public school teachers in Cebu City and obtained $ro" the latter promissory notes and special powers of attorney authorizing it to ta!e and collect their salary chec!s from the Division *ffice in Cebu City o$ the Bureau o$ Public Schools sou#ht inter alia to nulli$y the Circular. /t
is clear that the teachers had in $act assi#ned to or waived in $avor o$ La$ra their $uture salaries which were still public $unds. ,hat assi#n"ent or waiver was contrary to pub lic policy. / would there$ore vote to #rant the petition only i$ the salary and RA,A chec)s #arnished corresponds to an une(pired payroll period and RA,A "onth respectively. Padilla% &.% concurs.
*ootnotes 1 )ollo p. 1=. = Id . p. 1J. Id . p. 11;. > Id . p. 11>. ; Id . p. 1=<. 8 n#ineerin# Construction /nc. v. National Power Corporation No. %H >;J< =< *une 1;>J =< Nove"ber 1<9 Sec. J Rule ;I o$ the Rules o$ Court. I -ector S. de %eon ,he %aw on Ne#otiable /nstru"ents 1J9 People v. Dabut *r. No. %H>=. J No. %H=1= =; Nove"ber 1 Phil. J> ?1<==@9 ,raders Royal Ban) v. /AC 6.R. No. 8J;1> 1I &ece"ber 1<;=8 =J *anuary 1<<1 1< SCRA >;=. &A'/& *R. & . concurrin# and dissentin#2 1 > Phil. J> 1<==G.
= = SCRA J<< 1<8JG. 1<= SCRA !; 1< 1 SCRA 818 1
